- May 3, 2018
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "Strategic Targets". A Strategic Target isn't just "the goal of a campaign", it's "the objective that this army is working towards". So, if we look at Germany's three major WW1 offensives on the Western front (the initial Schlieffen Plan, the Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensives), all of them would have a Strategic Target of Paris. Taking Verdun as an example, the Germans were trying to take the city of Verdun; however, the reason they were trying to take Verdun was because they wanted Paris. Their goal was Paris, and taking Verdun would bring the German Army closer to taking Paris. For the entire war, the German army on the Western Front had a Strategic Target of Paris. In this suggested mechanic, not taking Paris doesn't inherently anger the public (although presumably both the heavy losses and the British blockade does), but admitting that Paris is unachievable and trying for a different Strategic Goal would.I think the penalty for changing an attack target should be less
in ww1 for an example the goal of many campaigns was basically never really met.
and the Public did care little
I presume casualties will increase War Exhaustion independent of this suggested mechanic.of course if you continuesly fail to take a target you loose manpower which likely affects the public opinions you and yadda yadda you don’t want that.
The problem is that multiple strategic targets give much more potential for manipulating the system to micro, and don't add much flavor. If you just want your army to push southwest, you could just pick a bunch of Targets to the southwest; when you can only pick one target, you can't use the system to just generally push in a specific direction independent of a specific goal.also you should be able to have multiple targets: This of course if taken to the extreme will severely restrict your ability to win the war by having too many pointwhere the general „focuses“
And yet again, a Strategic Target is an objective that a whole army is working to capture. Having multiple of those doesn't make sense.
Fields/industry generally are just a feature of the land you're taking, not a Strategic Target. Like I said before, a Strategic Target isn't just what the goal of a specific campaign is, it's what the goal of all of this army's operations are. If that goal is just generally "Occupy enemy land", that doesn't require a specific Strategic Target, just a general instruction to take enemy land.I would also like to have these points to be not stagnant but Variable
For an example in the start of the game in Germany the most important things are likely the agrarian fields and the towns but as you rapidly industrialize the Rheinland becomes the industrial heartland and there are many cities which’s are far more important then beforehand like Berlin becoming even more important then before due to the electric and chemical industry
So these points of interest if you will should be geographic locations like mountain ranges or rivers, infrastructure centers or lines, big cities and industrial centers most of these would be considered by an algorithm like a railroad that transports at least a certain amount of the enemy’s supply’s is one and your industry next to the enemy’s borders is one of your defendables
Not every single point of interest should be a Strategic Target. A Strategic Target should only be a specific goal that an entire army might be working towards. So, taking a river or capital city would be a Strategic Target, but taking a mountain pass or cutting (rather then securing) a railroad would not be; those are part of a larger strategic goal.